LAWS(DLH)-2006-9-162

AMARJEET SINGH Vs. SHARDA ODHRAI

Decided On September 29, 2006
AMARJEET SINGH Appellant
V/S
SHARDA OBHRAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Order shall dispose of an application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for an ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from selling, disposing off, alienating, transferring or creating any third party interest in the Suit property bearing No. BP-3, NH-IV, Lajpat Nagar, Part-Ill, New Delhi. The plaint seeks to specific performance of a document which the plaintiff asserts to be an agreement for the sale of a Suit property. The document reads as follows :

(2.) It is this document that forms the fulcrum of the dispute, and therefore has to be meticulously and carefully construed by the Court. In doing so, the ratio in C. I. T. Punjab Haryana, J & K H, P. and that of Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Panipat Woollen and General Mills Co. Ltd. Chandigarh, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 640 would indubitably have to be understood and applied. The Apex Court had enunciated that while construing any document prefence should be given to its substance over its form; the naomenclature or title must make way for its essence. Thereafter in Mayawantl v. Kaushalya Devi, (1990) 3 Supreme Court Cases 1, the Court found that the alleged oral agreement was surrounded by uncertainties and it observed as follows :

(3.) So far as the facts of the present case are concerned the suit property, admeasuring 1066.66 sq. yds. was allotted to the late husband of the Defendant by the L & DO and appears to have been converted to freehold in favour of the Defendant on 9-7-2003. The Defendant is an aged lady who was being regularly treated by Dr. Ashwini Gupta who was instrumental in introducing the Plaintiff to her. The Plaint specifically records that Dr. Ashwaini Gupta had assured the plaintiff that an Agreement to Sell would be signed on or before 30-10-2005, but the allegedly Defendant procrastinated in doing so. Keeping the special relationship between a doctor and his patient in perspective the repeated asseverations in the plaint to the effect that Dr. Ashwini Gupta had assured the plaintiff that requisite action would be taken by the Defendant, leaves a lot to be answered by Dr. Ashwini Gupta. The Plaint further mentions the filing of a Suit for Mandatory Injunction by the Defendant praying therein that the Plaintiff be directed to accept the refund of the sum of Rs. 60 lakhs.